I agree that sometimes a quality computer is in order. However, no matter how nice your computer you probably don't need a top of the line processor. Which was my point. Spending money on the processor is a waste of money that would do more good spent on some other component (like a water cooling system).
But this/home equivalent would also need to store all registry entries needed to execute their programs (registry entries which should be restrained to only being under the users personal registry area.).
NO! That's the problem with the registry, it's chuck full of crap. It's amazing to me that Windows is still trying to get this right when UNIX has had the right idea for approximately a century.
System settings and default settings for applications would go someplace besides/home (like UNIX's/etc) and settings in/etc would be overridden by settings in the users/home. That way when I moved to a new machine I could move my home drive and (assuming the applications are installed) everything would work the same. Windows has the worst of both worlds. Not only is it practically impossible to move the modifications to your profile to a new box, but it is also impossible for a systems administrator to set up default settings for users without being some sort of a Pagan God.
As for your rant on gaming. My personal opinion is that technology doesn't make cool games. I still spend time playing Nethack, for crying out loud. And I made the mistake of introducing my Boy Scouts to Netrek, and now I can't get them to leave me alone about the game.
Game companies support older technologies because they have learned that Microsoft is as much their competitor as their friend. If you depend on them too heavily they will back stab you. That and they know that if they require the newer technology then they are going to get calls from folks every time it breaks their PC.
Uh, Game developers aren't in the market to sell hardware. They are selling software. They want as broad a potential market as possible. If a person has to buy a new $2000 computer just to play the developers $50 game, then the developer isn't going to get a lot of sales. Games like that might make Intel happy, but if they really want games that suck up cycles like mad, then they should write them.
My guess is that with the XBox out, things are only going to get worse. Most PC Game companies won't want to write something that couldn't at least theoretically be ported to the XBox. Microsoft has basically removed most gamers primary reason for upgrading their PC.
As for the rest of your rant, what Microsoft really needs is a/home directory like UNIX. All of my files, settings, and everything else sits in that directory so that moving to a new machine is easy.
Yes, I understand that fileserving (especially over the Internet) doesn't require a lot of processor power. I suppose I can't speak for those folks that are infringing on copyrights, but I have been ripping my CDs to Ogg, and I am starting to think a faster processor would be a good thing. And my buddy that is encoding all of his digital video is even more interested in a powerful processor.
And that's what Intel should be pushing. They should be running commmercials where people are sending video CDs of their kids to the grandparents. That requires a nifty processor, and it is precisely the kind of thing that gets normal people to upgrade their computer. Unfortunately Intel has been paying too much attention to Hollywood, who believes that they are the only folks that can make movies.
Besides, why should Intel care if people are downloading media? They aren't in the media biz. Multimedia files are big, and most people also purchase new computers when their hard drive gets full. Sure, you or I might simply pop in a new hard drive, but that's not at all normal. Computer sales mean processor sales. In other words it is in Intel (and AMD's) best interests to encourage people to share multimedia files.
The fact of the matter is that unless you are dealing with multimedia there is little reason to upgrade your Pentium II 500, and yet for whatever reason the hardware companies are going out of their way to make multimedia difficult to do on PCs.
Why in the world would anyone want to spend the money on a top of the line processor when they can buy an entire computer based on a value processor for $299 at Walmart.com? Heck, instead of spending $1500 or more on a new computer, I can buy three computers over the next year and be pretty sure that the computer I buy six months from now will be faster than the expensive computer I am buying now. So what if these computers are crap. At these prices I can afford to purchase another.
Besides, I don't want to spend my money on a processor. I don't run an processor intensive apps. I want more memory, a bigger monitor, and a faster hard drive. Spending money on a fast processor is just a waste.
The funniest part about this is that the killer application that would drive people to buy new processors is multimedia sharing. Encoding and decoding multimedia sucks down cycles like crazy. Instead of making it easy for people to share multimedia files Intel and AMD are busy making it as hard as possible. If sales are bad now, imagine when Intel and AMD's new products come out that treat their customers like criminals.
I thought that I was the only one in this particular situation. The fact that I don't like the RIAA doesn't make it ethical to make illicit copies of their copyrighted material. I personally have been trying to work around this problem by supporting independent artists, and artists that allow their music to be downloaded freely.
So far it's worked out more or less. I have found some new artists that I like, but it's a lot more work than just downloading the songs I hear on the radio.
What I really would like is a Internet radio station (or something) that I could listen to while hacking that had several different channels and only played independent music. Basically I want someone to act as a filter so that I don't have to do so much work:). I would pay money for something like that.
If it doesn't matter if YaST2 is Free or not, then why doesn't SuSE simply free it? The answer is simple, SuSE believes their proprietary installer/management console sets them apart from the competition. They also want to be able to charge you for each and every installation. I agree that the risk is minimal. Anyone who can learn YaST2 can learn to use someone else's tools should something happen to SuSE. However, why take the chance. The other distributions have perfectly acceptable tools, and their tools are Free Software.
SuSE's choice to use proprietary software in their distribution has already hurt them quite a bit. SuSE's popularity is declining steadily despite the fact that they have pretty neat tools. Apparently enough people care about Freedom to effect SuSE's market share.
Plenty of distributions have tried differentiate their products with proprietary value adds. RedHat has taken a completely different tack, however. They have seeded the market with their technology by making in Free Software. By doing this they have guaranteed that the technologies that they are expert in are the ones that are copied. Everytime that someone wants a base distribution to build their new idea on, they choose one of the Free distributions, and usually that means RedHat. That's why RedHat is synonymous with Linux, and that allows them to get the best Linux consulting gigs.
Sun has priced StarOffice reasonably enough so that I imagine that the companies that do take them up on their offer will probably get their money's worth. In fact, I nearly bought a copy myself. What held me back was the fact that it contains non-free software. I have a hard time encouraging vendors to bundle non-free software with GPLed software.
What's the point of switching from Windows if you are just going to tie
yourself to a different vendor? The fact of the matter is that the openness of
a technology matters, and if you don't believe me, talk to some of the fools
that got sucked into using Caldera's proprietary installation routines.
Caldera's management tools were cool, but it wasn't too long before they were
charging per processor fees, and now their Linux distribution has all but
vanished and they are back to beating the SCO Unix dead horse. So now their
customers get to unlearn all of the Caldera specific stuff they learned and
start again. Similar things have happened with several of the other
proprietary Linux distributions including Corel's brief foray into the world of
Linux.
The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of distributions that have
good Free Software management tools. For newbies I would recommend either
RedHat or Mandrake, and if you really want to see a Linux box that is easy to
keep up to date install Debian. The apt packaging tools make Windows update
look pitiful. They aren't graphical, but a single one line command will
download and install any package and all dependencies.
Or you can learn the hard way. The market has been particularly brutal to
companies that have tried to take Linux in a more proprietary direction. In
fact, the reason that RedHat is at the top of the food chain is that they have
consistently given away their software. SuSE, Caldera, Corel, and many others
have at times had niftier products, but it has always been RedHat's tools that
have spread because they were free. Apparently SuSE still hasn't learned it's
lesson.
I agree with you about the importance of developers to the success of a
platform. I personally believe that one of the reasons that OS/2 failed was
that IBM was not nearly as friendly to developers as Microsoft was. However,
Linux already has perfectly acceptable development tools. Many people even
prefer Linux's tools. And Linuxers are hard at work building
development tools that are more Windows-like as well. So when the waves of
Windows developers migrate to Linux they will be met with tools that are at
least somewhat familiar, but they won't be Microsoft tools.
You see, Microsoft can't afford without the massive profits that it derives
from Windows and MS Office. Microsoft has a Price/Earnings ratio in the high
30s, and that's with a profit margin that is also in the high 30s. Because of
their high profit margins they have a ridiculously high Price/Sales ratio of
over 10! Microsoft has to maintain their profit margins or their
Price/Earnings ratio will become even more ridiculous, causing their stock
price to plummet and triggering the evaporation of billions of dollars of paper
worth (much of it in the accounts of Microsoft employees). Microsoft can't
really afford to lose their desktop monopoly, and they certainly can't afford
to lose the desktop monopoly and the office suite monopoly. If that happens,
then the amount of Unix development skills currently at Microsoft won't matter
a bit, because Microsofties will be looking for new jobs.
Yes, when Linux starts to gain significant numbers of desktop
users, Corel will undoubtedly weigh in again with a Linux version of
PerfectOffice. However, by then it will be too late. In fact, it's too late
already. People making the switch to Linux on the desktop are not going to be
interested in PerfectOffice. OpenOffice is Free Software, and for those who
feel they must pay for their software they can buy the OpenOffice compatible
StarOffice. OpenOffice will guarantee that PerfectOffice gets squeezed out of
the low end, and StarOffice will suck up those that want to pay for their
office suite.
The article missed the most important reason why commercial software vendors
should port their software to Linux. The easiest way to slow down the
development of a GPLed competitor to your software product is to release a
Linux version. Already there are entire software categories where a commercial
Linux offering has little chance of gaining traction. Mozilla, for example,
pretty much guarantees that a commercial web browser isn't going to do well
under Linux (sorry Opera). Likewise OpenOffice has pretty much blocked the
office suite niche. StarOffice might work, because it is OpenOffice
compatible, inexpensive, and somewhat better than OpenOffice, but you can
forget about Corel ever selling a lot of Linux licenses. Even if Linux does
end up on a significant amount of desktops the Office suite installed by
default will be OpenOffice. In fact, you have to look pretty hard for a
mainstream desktop application that doesn't already have a strong Free Software
equivalent. When Linux makes its big move on the desktop people aren't going
to need Quicken, Photoshop (unless they do pre-press work, and even then...),
Winzip, and a whole host of other packages that Windows users have gotten used
to paying for.
Just look at the examples that the article used. How many people use
Dreamweaver or IBM ViaVoice? Hardly anyone. Both of these tools are limited
to small niches. Windows has been the dominant desktop platform since before
Windows 95 came out. Of course there is going to be software packages that are
available for Windows that don't have Free Software equivalents. In the long
run, however, that isn't likely to matter. Linux fits the needs of an
increasing number of folks, and it is free.
The paper you cited even goes so far as to refer to GNU/Linux. Chances are good that folks using the term GNU/Linux are going to use the FSF's definition of "Free Software."
Yes, but Visual Studio isn't going to keep anyone on Windows. MS Office reinforces MS Window's dominance, but Visual Studio is simply the tool that people use when they want to write Windows software. If folks start switching to something other than Windows on the desktop, then developers will switch right along with them. In this case Microsoft's lack of cross-platform support would hurt them very badly.
Yes, I suppose that I sort of makes sense. Still, all things considered Gnome really has got the jump when it comes to applications. Especially when you consider that Sun and the folks working on OpenOffice.org are closely allied with Gnome. KDE has the better desktop environment, but Gnome isn't too shabby, and it has better applications (including Evolution).
I don't think that it matters much though, whatever backend software that gets written will be available to Evolution as well. That's the beauty of open protocols.
You can't assume that this project is going to be cheaper than buying outright Outlook licenses. How can you predict in advance, and with a straight face, that a government-sponsored development contract is going to end up costing less PER GOVERNMENT SEAT than buying Outlook? You can't.
Come on now. The potential for savings for the German government is huge, and that's only if you consider how much migrating from MS Office and Exchange would save the German Government. When you add in the potential benefits to the German economy as other businesses switch from proprietary foreign software to inexpensive Free (German) Software, then it is basically a no-brainer. It almost doesn't matter what the system costs to build if you consider how much it might save the German economy, especially in the long run. Even worse, chances are good that the investment will pay for itself in the first year. Free Software is very close to having a competitive groupware solution right now. All that is missing is calendar sharing.
The German goverment is not simply a new competitor. It is a nation state with taxable authority and virtually unlimited resources compared to a private company, even one the size of Microsoft.
Precisely. The German government has a responsibility to do what is best for their people and their economy. Paying billions in software license fees to a foreign company hardly qualifies as being in Germany's best interests. There is a huge opportunity to save money by using Free Software, and if it takes a small investment to get to the point where this would be feasible, then that's a small price to pay. The fact of the matter is that Free Software is no longer nearly as risky a proposition as many people think. Free Software is proving itself a good investment in many areas. In fact, the biggest problem that most people have using Linux on the desktop is that OpenOffice doesn't open 100% of MS Office files seamlessly. That doesn't hardly matter to the German government. They can set whatever standard they want, and German companies will simply have to comply. The fact that complying with the German government will actually save these businesses money probably won't hurt either.
BECAUSE it is not spending its own money. A private company makes decision BASED UPON RISK for the proper allocation of fiscal resources. An entity that doesn't take risk into account, like the government in your example, is extremely vunerable to boondoggles.
Generally speaking I agree with you. If Microsoft were a German company then I think that you would be right. It would conceivably be in Germany's best interests to protect Microsoft if that were the case. However, Microsoft isn't a German company, and so it's a different story. Even if this KDE Groupware thing turns into a huge boondoggle, it will still probably work out better for Germans than spending that same money with Microsoft. Money spent on a foreign company is just gone. A large percentage of the money spent on German programmers ends back up in German coffers through taxes.
The creation of software is a service. The present paradigm (to use your word) of creating binary software and selling it as a manufactured good is not only artificial, but it is also very inefficient. It is not even the dominant way of developing software. Most computer programmers either contract out their services, or work for some company or organization on salary. The only reason that companies like Microsoft has so much power is that once you put your information into their products it is very difficult to get it out again. This, combined with the huge amounts of money that the software companies have amassed, helps guarantee that commercial software remains important.
The German government is simply using its money wisely. They added up the costs and realized that it would cost them less in the long run to pay for a build their own Groupware system than to buy one of the presently available alternatives and the host of upgrades that it would require over the years. Germany will get exactly what they want, and because they are reusing publicly available pieces they get a system that should be fairly inexpensive to support. To sweeten the pot the money the German government will be spending will end up in the pockets of German developers (who pay German taxes) and not to a foreign company.
The only thing that surprises me about this announcement is that the German government isn't starting with the already excellent Evolution client. Coding an equivalent in KDE seems like a bit of a waste. Other than that, this announcement makes perfect sense. The only thing that Free Software is missing so that it could be considered a Groupware solution is calendar sharing.
The difference is that now there is a legitimate choice. I have been using Linux since about the time that Windows 95 came out, and quite frankly Linux used to be clunky as all get out. There wasn't a single useable tool for Linux that wasn't directly related to software development. I used Linux because I like tools like Emacs, Python, Perl, gcc, etc. But other than these development tools you were pretty much out in the cold.
I certainly wouldn't have dreamed about putting Linux on my mom's computer.
Nowadays, however, Linux is getting to be a very acceptable Windows replacement. If Microsoft pushes too hard folks will simply switch to an operating system that can't be controlled. I guarantee you that if the choice is between giving up music sharing and switching to Linux a generation of young people will learn to use Linux.
Of course Hollywood is pissed, and they will continue to be upset until they realize that making folks happy is what keeps them in business. They were upset about VHS too, but they aren't upset now.
The fact of the matter is that Hollywood has already lost the CD/DVD battle. There isn't a DVD manufacturer on this planet (besides Sony) that hasn't leaked instructions on how to turn off all the egregious features on their player. Heck Apex has made a business of making their players easy to hack. And there are too many CD players in existence for the record companies to try anything to tricky on that front. Hollywood can pretend that this isn't the case, but they are just fooling themselves. Apple would be foolish to not press their advantage on this front.
Hollywood can try and put the genie back in the bottle, but if they start breaking people's DVD players, then they are likely to do themselves more harm than good. If I take a DVD back because it won't play in my DVD player then they have not only lost a sale to me, but they have the added expense of a return to deal with. If they do this enough, then I don't buy DVDs anymore.
I have a large pile of oggs that I ripped from CDs that I own. If I wanted to move these files to a new computer under Palladium I would be SOL. As for authentication and security benefits, with Palladium you leave yourself totally dependendent on one vendor (Microsoft). The only reason that Palladium looks good from a security standpoint is that in the past the only alternative was to use a machine that gave everyone administrative rights all of the time. By logging into my Linux box as a non-root user I gain nearly all of the security from viruses that Palladium would give Windows users, and I don't have to trust anyone but myself. I also have access to all of the strong crypto authentication I might possibly need.
Besides, Intel's customers don't really care about security. If they did, they wouldn't be using Microsoft's current products (which are remarkably insecure). Intel's current customers want to play MP3s, they want to digitize their home movies. They want to read their electronic documents on the computers of their choice. Microsoft is getting in the way of what people want, and it is going to work against them.
I agree with you that the computer is becoming an appliance. But Intel and AMD shouldn't be accelerating this process along! They should be doing everything in their power to make sure that the computer is useable as a general purpose device, and the reason for this is simple, they would make a lot less money if computers had 10 upgrade cycles as opposed to 3 year upgrade cycles.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is happy to switch to the idea of the computer as an appliance because they are tired of forcing their customers along the upgrade treadmill. They want to charge their customers a monthly fee and then pare down their research to a much lower level. As long as the PC remains an open system this isn't likely to work in the long term because Linux will eventually pass them up if they slow down. So Microsoft is using their current market clout to close down the market.
Not that this is likely to work, but that's what is happening.
Until a law is passed that requires Palladium, it will be in Apple's best interests to not comply. After all, people are likely to be really upset with their new Windows machines that won't let them make digital copies of their home movies or rip MP3s from their own CDs. For many folks it would be the perfect reason to switch. Heck, even Linux would start looking like a respectable general purpose desktop if the alternative was Palladium.
My guess is that a law that required Palladium would be fairly hard to secure. Even the DMCA has come under fairly heavy fire, and the only people that are really affected by the DMCA are the occasional scholar and folks that want to play DVDs on their Linux boxes. Palladium would effect the lives of everyone that owned a computer, and most folks will be upset with the changes. Lawmakers that back Palladium laws are very likely to find themselves very unpopular.
For home use, who cares. There are plenty of word processors that are good enough and most are now available for Mac OS X. You can bet that little Johnny and Joe SixPack is going to be far more concerned about whether they can rip MP3s than whether they have access to MS Word.
People are always talking about how smart the folks at Microsoft are. Just wait, if they push hard on Palladium it will kill them.
That's the craziest thing that I have ever heard. The processor guys should be happy when someone "borrows" software or uses their computer to rip their CDs to Oggs. Every cent that Intel's and AMD's customers spend on software and media content is one more cent that they aren't spending on computer hardware. More importantly, sharing media and software is increasingly what people want to do with their computers. Given the choice of an old slow PC that allows them to rip MP3s and a new computer that doesn't (and that costs a pile of money) many folks are going to choose to stick with their old hardware. If AMD and Intel think that the PC market it soft now, just wait until they start treating their customer like criminals. Especially since you don't really need a new computer unless you are working with multimedia. If all you want to do is some word processing your old machine is almost certainly fast enough.
You want to know when Linux is going to be truly ready for the home desktop? It will be ready when Microsoft starts really pushing Palladium. Until that time users in North America and Europe will gladly pay a little extra to stick with what they already know (Windows). When Microsoft makes it impossible for people to use their computers like they want, all of a sudden folks are going to realize that Linux isn't that hard to use after all.
Lots of companies base projects on one operating system. The difference is that the operating system is usually Windows. The fact of the matter is the network infrastructure is becoming a commodity. You can bet that the company in question spent their half million on a capable Linux-compatible solution, they just purchased it from someone other than HP. And since Linux is so standards compliant you can bet that this solution would also work with Windows, or any other operating system you can think of.
The days when infrastructure solutions can afford to be "Windows-only" are quickly coming to an end. There are simply too many folks that are realizing the tremendous cost savings of Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that sometimes a quality computer is in order. However, no matter how nice your computer you probably don't need a top of the line processor. Which was my point. Spending money on the processor is a waste of money that would do more good spent on some other component (like a water cooling system).
NO! That's the problem with the registry, it's chuck full of crap. It's amazing to me that Windows is still trying to get this right when UNIX has had the right idea for approximately a century.
System settings and default settings for applications would go someplace besides /home (like UNIX's /etc) and settings in /etc would be overridden by settings in the users /home. That way when I moved to a new machine I could move my home drive and (assuming the applications are installed) everything would work the same. Windows has the worst of both worlds. Not only is it practically impossible to move the modifications to your profile to a new box, but it is also impossible for a systems administrator to set up default settings for users without being some sort of a Pagan God.
As for your rant on gaming. My personal opinion is that technology doesn't make cool games. I still spend time playing Nethack, for crying out loud. And I made the mistake of introducing my Boy Scouts to Netrek, and now I can't get them to leave me alone about the game.
Game companies support older technologies because they have learned that Microsoft is as much their competitor as their friend. If you depend on them too heavily they will back stab you. That and they know that if they require the newer technology then they are going to get calls from folks every time it breaks their PC.
Uh, Game developers aren't in the market to sell hardware. They are selling software. They want as broad a potential market as possible. If a person has to buy a new $2000 computer just to play the developers $50 game, then the developer isn't going to get a lot of sales. Games like that might make Intel happy, but if they really want games that suck up cycles like mad, then they should write them.
My guess is that with the XBox out, things are only going to get worse. Most PC Game companies won't want to write something that couldn't at least theoretically be ported to the XBox. Microsoft has basically removed most gamers primary reason for upgrading their PC.
As for the rest of your rant, what Microsoft really needs is a /home directory like UNIX. All of my files, settings, and everything else sits in that directory so that moving to a new machine is easy.
P.S. I know you were trolling.
Yes, I understand that fileserving (especially over the Internet) doesn't require a lot of processor power. I suppose I can't speak for those folks that are infringing on copyrights, but I have been ripping my CDs to Ogg, and I am starting to think a faster processor would be a good thing. And my buddy that is encoding all of his digital video is even more interested in a powerful processor.
And that's what Intel should be pushing. They should be running commmercials where people are sending video CDs of their kids to the grandparents. That requires a nifty processor, and it is precisely the kind of thing that gets normal people to upgrade their computer. Unfortunately Intel has been paying too much attention to Hollywood, who believes that they are the only folks that can make movies.
Besides, why should Intel care if people are downloading media? They aren't in the media biz. Multimedia files are big, and most people also purchase new computers when their hard drive gets full. Sure, you or I might simply pop in a new hard drive, but that's not at all normal. Computer sales mean processor sales. In other words it is in Intel (and AMD's) best interests to encourage people to share multimedia files.
The fact of the matter is that unless you are dealing with multimedia there is little reason to upgrade your Pentium II 500, and yet for whatever reason the hardware companies are going out of their way to make multimedia difficult to do on PCs.
Why in the world would anyone want to spend the money on a top of the line processor when they can buy an entire computer based on a value processor for $299 at Walmart.com? Heck, instead of spending $1500 or more on a new computer, I can buy three computers over the next year and be pretty sure that the computer I buy six months from now will be faster than the expensive computer I am buying now. So what if these computers are crap. At these prices I can afford to purchase another.
Besides, I don't want to spend my money on a processor. I don't run an processor intensive apps. I want more memory, a bigger monitor, and a faster hard drive. Spending money on a fast processor is just a waste.
The funniest part about this is that the killer application that would drive people to buy new processors is multimedia sharing. Encoding and decoding multimedia sucks down cycles like crazy. Instead of making it easy for people to share multimedia files Intel and AMD are busy making it as hard as possible. If sales are bad now, imagine when Intel and AMD's new products come out that treat their customers like criminals.
I thought that I was the only one in this particular situation. The fact that I don't like the RIAA doesn't make it ethical to make illicit copies of their copyrighted material. I personally have been trying to work around this problem by supporting independent artists, and artists that allow their music to be downloaded freely.
So far it's worked out more or less. I have found some new artists that I like, but it's a lot more work than just downloading the songs I hear on the radio.
What I really would like is a Internet radio station (or something) that I could listen to while hacking that had several different channels and only played independent music. Basically I want someone to act as a filter so that I don't have to do so much work :). I would pay money for something like that.
If it doesn't matter if YaST2 is Free or not, then why doesn't SuSE simply free it? The answer is simple, SuSE believes their proprietary installer/management console sets them apart from the competition. They also want to be able to charge you for each and every installation. I agree that the risk is minimal. Anyone who can learn YaST2 can learn to use someone else's tools should something happen to SuSE. However, why take the chance. The other distributions have perfectly acceptable tools, and their tools are Free Software.
SuSE's choice to use proprietary software in their distribution has already hurt them quite a bit. SuSE's popularity is declining steadily despite the fact that they have pretty neat tools. Apparently enough people care about Freedom to effect SuSE's market share.
Plenty of distributions have tried differentiate their products with proprietary value adds. RedHat has taken a completely different tack, however. They have seeded the market with their technology by making in Free Software. By doing this they have guaranteed that the technologies that they are expert in are the ones that are copied. Everytime that someone wants a base distribution to build their new idea on, they choose one of the Free distributions, and usually that means RedHat. That's why RedHat is synonymous with Linux, and that allows them to get the best Linux consulting gigs.
Sun has priced StarOffice reasonably enough so that I imagine that the companies that do take them up on their offer will probably get their money's worth. In fact, I nearly bought a copy myself. What held me back was the fact that it contains non-free software. I have a hard time encouraging vendors to bundle non-free software with GPLed software.
What's the point of switching from Windows if you are just going to tie yourself to a different vendor? The fact of the matter is that the openness of a technology matters, and if you don't believe me, talk to some of the fools that got sucked into using Caldera's proprietary installation routines. Caldera's management tools were cool, but it wasn't too long before they were charging per processor fees, and now their Linux distribution has all but vanished and they are back to beating the SCO Unix dead horse. So now their customers get to unlearn all of the Caldera specific stuff they learned and start again. Similar things have happened with several of the other proprietary Linux distributions including Corel's brief foray into the world of Linux.
The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of distributions that have good Free Software management tools. For newbies I would recommend either RedHat or Mandrake, and if you really want to see a Linux box that is easy to keep up to date install Debian. The apt packaging tools make Windows update look pitiful. They aren't graphical, but a single one line command will download and install any package and all dependencies.
Or you can learn the hard way. The market has been particularly brutal to companies that have tried to take Linux in a more proprietary direction. In fact, the reason that RedHat is at the top of the food chain is that they have consistently given away their software. SuSE, Caldera, Corel, and many others have at times had niftier products, but it has always been RedHat's tools that have spread because they were free. Apparently SuSE still hasn't learned it's lesson.
I agree with you about the importance of developers to the success of a platform. I personally believe that one of the reasons that OS/2 failed was that IBM was not nearly as friendly to developers as Microsoft was. However, Linux already has perfectly acceptable development tools. Many people even prefer Linux's tools. And Linuxers are hard at work building development tools that are more Windows-like as well. So when the waves of Windows developers migrate to Linux they will be met with tools that are at least somewhat familiar, but they won't be Microsoft tools. You see, Microsoft can't afford without the massive profits that it derives from Windows and MS Office. Microsoft has a Price/Earnings ratio in the high 30s, and that's with a profit margin that is also in the high 30s. Because of their high profit margins they have a ridiculously high Price/Sales ratio of over 10! Microsoft has to maintain their profit margins or their Price/Earnings ratio will become even more ridiculous, causing their stock price to plummet and triggering the evaporation of billions of dollars of paper worth (much of it in the accounts of Microsoft employees). Microsoft can't really afford to lose their desktop monopoly, and they certainly can't afford to lose the desktop monopoly and the office suite monopoly. If that happens, then the amount of Unix development skills currently at Microsoft won't matter a bit, because Microsofties will be looking for new jobs.
Yes, when Linux starts to gain significant numbers of desktop users, Corel will undoubtedly weigh in again with a Linux version of PerfectOffice. However, by then it will be too late. In fact, it's too late already. People making the switch to Linux on the desktop are not going to be interested in PerfectOffice. OpenOffice is Free Software, and for those who feel they must pay for their software they can buy the OpenOffice compatible StarOffice. OpenOffice will guarantee that PerfectOffice gets squeezed out of the low end, and StarOffice will suck up those that want to pay for their office suite.
The article missed the most important reason why commercial software vendors should port their software to Linux. The easiest way to slow down the development of a GPLed competitor to your software product is to release a Linux version. Already there are entire software categories where a commercial Linux offering has little chance of gaining traction. Mozilla, for example, pretty much guarantees that a commercial web browser isn't going to do well under Linux (sorry Opera). Likewise OpenOffice has pretty much blocked the office suite niche. StarOffice might work, because it is OpenOffice compatible, inexpensive, and somewhat better than OpenOffice, but you can forget about Corel ever selling a lot of Linux licenses. Even if Linux does end up on a significant amount of desktops the Office suite installed by default will be OpenOffice. In fact, you have to look pretty hard for a mainstream desktop application that doesn't already have a strong Free Software equivalent. When Linux makes its big move on the desktop people aren't going to need Quicken, Photoshop (unless they do pre-press work, and even then...), Winzip, and a whole host of other packages that Windows users have gotten used to paying for.
Just look at the examples that the article used. How many people use Dreamweaver or IBM ViaVoice? Hardly anyone. Both of these tools are limited to small niches. Windows has been the dominant desktop platform since before Windows 95 came out. Of course there is going to be software packages that are available for Windows that don't have Free Software equivalents. In the long run, however, that isn't likely to matter. Linux fits the needs of an increasing number of folks, and it is free.
The paper you cited even goes so far as to refer to GNU/Linux. Chances are good that folks using the term GNU/Linux are going to use the FSF's definition of "Free Software."
Just ask for volunteers that are willing to give up their pay so that the company can afford to use Outlook.
In all seriousness though, if the client that replaces Outlook were good enough then switching would hardly be a hardship.
Yes, but Visual Studio isn't going to keep anyone on Windows. MS Office reinforces MS Window's dominance, but Visual Studio is simply the tool that people use when they want to write Windows software. If folks start switching to something other than Windows on the desktop, then developers will switch right along with them. In this case Microsoft's lack of cross-platform support would hurt them very badly.
Yes, I suppose that I sort of makes sense. Still, all things considered Gnome really has got the jump when it comes to applications. Especially when you consider that Sun and the folks working on OpenOffice.org are closely allied with Gnome. KDE has the better desktop environment, but Gnome isn't too shabby, and it has better applications (including Evolution).
I don't think that it matters much though, whatever backend software that gets written will be available to Evolution as well. That's the beauty of open protocols.
Come on now. The potential for savings for the German government is huge, and that's only if you consider how much migrating from MS Office and Exchange would save the German Government. When you add in the potential benefits to the German economy as other businesses switch from proprietary foreign software to inexpensive Free (German) Software, then it is basically a no-brainer. It almost doesn't matter what the system costs to build if you consider how much it might save the German economy, especially in the long run. Even worse, chances are good that the investment will pay for itself in the first year. Free Software is very close to having a competitive groupware solution right now. All that is missing is calendar sharing.
Precisely. The German government has a responsibility to do what is best for their people and their economy. Paying billions in software license fees to a foreign company hardly qualifies as being in Germany's best interests. There is a huge opportunity to save money by using Free Software, and if it takes a small investment to get to the point where this would be feasible, then that's a small price to pay. The fact of the matter is that Free Software is no longer nearly as risky a proposition as many people think. Free Software is proving itself a good investment in many areas. In fact, the biggest problem that most people have using Linux on the desktop is that OpenOffice doesn't open 100% of MS Office files seamlessly. That doesn't hardly matter to the German government. They can set whatever standard they want, and German companies will simply have to comply. The fact that complying with the German government will actually save these businesses money probably won't hurt either.
Generally speaking I agree with you. If Microsoft were a German company then I think that you would be right. It would conceivably be in Germany's best interests to protect Microsoft if that were the case. However, Microsoft isn't a German company, and so it's a different story. Even if this KDE Groupware thing turns into a huge boondoggle, it will still probably work out better for Germans than spending that same money with Microsoft. Money spent on a foreign company is just gone. A large percentage of the money spent on German programmers ends back up in German coffers through taxes.
Germany can't lose.
The creation of software is a service. The present paradigm (to use your word) of creating binary software and selling it as a manufactured good is not only artificial, but it is also very inefficient. It is not even the dominant way of developing software. Most computer programmers either contract out their services, or work for some company or organization on salary. The only reason that companies like Microsoft has so much power is that once you put your information into their products it is very difficult to get it out again. This, combined with the huge amounts of money that the software companies have amassed, helps guarantee that commercial software remains important.
The German government is simply using its money wisely. They added up the costs and realized that it would cost them less in the long run to pay for a build their own Groupware system than to buy one of the presently available alternatives and the host of upgrades that it would require over the years. Germany will get exactly what they want, and because they are reusing publicly available pieces they get a system that should be fairly inexpensive to support. To sweeten the pot the money the German government will be spending will end up in the pockets of German developers (who pay German taxes) and not to a foreign company.
The only thing that surprises me about this announcement is that the German government isn't starting with the already excellent Evolution client. Coding an equivalent in KDE seems like a bit of a waste. Other than that, this announcement makes perfect sense. The only thing that Free Software is missing so that it could be considered a Groupware solution is calendar sharing.
The difference is that now there is a legitimate choice. I have been using Linux since about the time that Windows 95 came out, and quite frankly Linux used to be clunky as all get out. There wasn't a single useable tool for Linux that wasn't directly related to software development. I used Linux because I like tools like Emacs, Python, Perl, gcc, etc. But other than these development tools you were pretty much out in the cold.
I certainly wouldn't have dreamed about putting Linux on my mom's computer.
Nowadays, however, Linux is getting to be a very acceptable Windows replacement. If Microsoft pushes too hard folks will simply switch to an operating system that can't be controlled. I guarantee you that if the choice is between giving up music sharing and switching to Linux a generation of young people will learn to use Linux.
They might even like it.
Of course Hollywood is pissed, and they will continue to be upset until they realize that making folks happy is what keeps them in business. They were upset about VHS too, but they aren't upset now.
The fact of the matter is that Hollywood has already lost the CD/DVD battle. There isn't a DVD manufacturer on this planet (besides Sony) that hasn't leaked instructions on how to turn off all the egregious features on their player. Heck Apex has made a business of making their players easy to hack. And there are too many CD players in existence for the record companies to try anything to tricky on that front. Hollywood can pretend that this isn't the case, but they are just fooling themselves. Apple would be foolish to not press their advantage on this front.
Hollywood can try and put the genie back in the bottle, but if they start breaking people's DVD players, then they are likely to do themselves more harm than good. If I take a DVD back because it won't play in my DVD player then they have not only lost a sale to me, but they have the added expense of a return to deal with. If they do this enough, then I don't buy DVDs anymore.
I have a large pile of oggs that I ripped from CDs that I own. If I wanted to move these files to a new computer under Palladium I would be SOL. As for authentication and security benefits, with Palladium you leave yourself totally dependendent on one vendor (Microsoft). The only reason that Palladium looks good from a security standpoint is that in the past the only alternative was to use a machine that gave everyone administrative rights all of the time. By logging into my Linux box as a non-root user I gain nearly all of the security from viruses that Palladium would give Windows users, and I don't have to trust anyone but myself. I also have access to all of the strong crypto authentication I might possibly need.
Besides, Intel's customers don't really care about security. If they did, they wouldn't be using Microsoft's current products (which are remarkably insecure). Intel's current customers want to play MP3s, they want to digitize their home movies. They want to read their electronic documents on the computers of their choice. Microsoft is getting in the way of what people want, and it is going to work against them.
I agree with you that the computer is becoming an appliance. But Intel and AMD shouldn't be accelerating this process along! They should be doing everything in their power to make sure that the computer is useable as a general purpose device, and the reason for this is simple, they would make a lot less money if computers had 10 upgrade cycles as opposed to 3 year upgrade cycles.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is happy to switch to the idea of the computer as an appliance because they are tired of forcing their customers along the upgrade treadmill. They want to charge their customers a monthly fee and then pare down their research to a much lower level. As long as the PC remains an open system this isn't likely to work in the long term because Linux will eventually pass them up if they slow down. So Microsoft is using their current market clout to close down the market.
Not that this is likely to work, but that's what is happening.
Until a law is passed that requires Palladium, it will be in Apple's best interests to not comply. After all, people are likely to be really upset with their new Windows machines that won't let them make digital copies of their home movies or rip MP3s from their own CDs. For many folks it would be the perfect reason to switch. Heck, even Linux would start looking like a respectable general purpose desktop if the alternative was Palladium.
My guess is that a law that required Palladium would be fairly hard to secure. Even the DMCA has come under fairly heavy fire, and the only people that are really affected by the DMCA are the occasional scholar and folks that want to play DVDs on their Linux boxes. Palladium would effect the lives of everyone that owned a computer, and most folks will be upset with the changes. Lawmakers that back Palladium laws are very likely to find themselves very unpopular.
For home use, who cares. There are plenty of word processors that are good enough and most are now available for Mac OS X. You can bet that little Johnny and Joe SixPack is going to be far more concerned about whether they can rip MP3s than whether they have access to MS Word.
People are always talking about how smart the folks at Microsoft are. Just wait, if they push hard on Palladium it will kill them.
That's the craziest thing that I have ever heard. The processor guys should be happy when someone "borrows" software or uses their computer to rip their CDs to Oggs. Every cent that Intel's and AMD's customers spend on software and media content is one more cent that they aren't spending on computer hardware. More importantly, sharing media and software is increasingly what people want to do with their computers. Given the choice of an old slow PC that allows them to rip MP3s and a new computer that doesn't (and that costs a pile of money) many folks are going to choose to stick with their old hardware. If AMD and Intel think that the PC market it soft now, just wait until they start treating their customer like criminals. Especially since you don't really need a new computer unless you are working with multimedia. If all you want to do is some word processing your old machine is almost certainly fast enough.
You want to know when Linux is going to be truly ready for the home desktop? It will be ready when Microsoft starts really pushing Palladium. Until that time users in North America and Europe will gladly pay a little extra to stick with what they already know (Windows). When Microsoft makes it impossible for people to use their computers like they want, all of a sudden folks are going to realize that Linux isn't that hard to use after all.
These companies are writing their own epitaph.
Lots of companies base projects on one operating system. The difference is that the operating system is usually Windows. The fact of the matter is the network infrastructure is becoming a commodity. You can bet that the company in question spent their half million on a capable Linux-compatible solution, they just purchased it from someone other than HP. And since Linux is so standards compliant you can bet that this solution would also work with Windows, or any other operating system you can think of.
The days when infrastructure solutions can afford to be "Windows-only" are quickly coming to an end. There are simply too many folks that are realizing the tremendous cost savings of Linux.